74574 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices 

6180.14 and FRA F 6180.47). The new 

expiration date for this information 

collection is August 31, 2009. (14) OMB 

No. 2130–0516, Remotely Controlled 

Switch Operations (49 CFR part 218). 

The new expiration date for this 

information collection is September 30, 

2009. (15) OMB No. 2130–0509, State 

Safety Participation Regulations and 

Remedial Actions (49 CFR part 209) 

(Forms FRA F 6180.33/61/67/96/96A/ 

109/110/111/112). The new expiration 

date for this information collection is 

September 30, 2009. (16) OMB No. 

2130–0005, Hours of Service 

Regulations (49 CFR 228). The new 

expiration date for this information 

collection is November 30, 2009. 

Persons affected by the above 

referenced information collections are 

not required to respond to any 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. These approvals by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

certify that FRA has complied with the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) and with 

5 CFR 1320.5(b) by informing the public 

about OMB’s approval of the 

information collection requirements of 

the above cited forms and regulations. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

Issued in Washington, DC on December 6, 

2006. 

D.J. Stadtler, 

Director, Office of Budget, Federal Railroad 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–21014 Filed 12–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Improvements To Enhance the 

Capacity and Improve the Operation of 

the Portal Bridge, a Rail Crossing Over 

the Hackensack River Along the 

Northeast Corridor Between Kearny, 

NJ and Secaucus, NJ 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to 

advise the public that it will jointly 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) with the New Jersey 

Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) and 

in cooperation with the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(AMTRAK), to study improvements to 

enhance the capacity and improve the 

operation of the Portal Bridge, a twotrack moveable swing-span bridge 

crossing over the Hackensack River 

along AMTRAK’s Northeast Corridor 

rail line. AMTRAK and NJ TRANSIT are 

proposing to enhance the capacity and 

improve the operation of the Portal 

Bridge. 

FRA is issuing this notice to solicit 

public and agency input into the 

development of the scope of the EIS and 

to advise the public that outreach 

activities conducted by NJ TRANSIT 

and its representatives will be 

considered in the preparation of the EIS. 

The Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) is a cooperating agency for the 

environmental review. FTA will 

contribute information for which it has 

special expertise and ensure the EIS is 

prepared in compliance with its 

environmental regulations. The EIS will 

be prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) of 1969 

and the applicable regulations 

implementing NEPA as set forth in 64 

FR 28545 (May 26, 1999) and 23 CFR 

part 771. The EIS will also address as 

necessary Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of 

the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) (DOT Act) 

and other applicable Federal, and State 

laws and regulations. 

The EIS will evaluate a ‘‘No Action 

Alternative’’ along with various build 

alternatives which could retain, replace, 

or modify the existing Portal Bridge. 

Alternatives proposing to retain the 

existing bridge would include the 

rehabilitation of the existing structure to 

a state of good repair, along with the 

construction of an additional bridge for 

added capacity. The new bridge could 

be either a moveable or a fixed bridge 

and its height above mean high water 

(MHW) would vary accordingly. The 

new structure may consist of a two- or 

three-track bridge. Alternatives 

proposing to replace the existing bridge 

would require the construction of two 

new bridges of varying heights, types, 

and number of tracks. The two new 

bridges could be built on new parallel 

alignments, or one new bridge could be 

built on the existing bridge alignment by 

use of a staged approach. Each of these 

new bridges would have two or three 

new tracks. Alternatives proposing to 

modify the existing bridge would entail 

rehabilitation and raising of the existing 

bridge to a new height. The existing 

bridge may be fixed in place or may 

remain moveable, depending on the 

proposed height above MHW. A new 

bridge could also be constructed on a 

different alignment. 

DATES: A scoping meeting will be held 

on January 17, 2007 in the Newark 

Public Library, Centennial Hall, 2nd 

Floor, 5 Washington Street, Newark, NJ, 

07101, (973) 733–7800, from 4 to 8 p.m. 

To ensure that all significant issues are 

identified and considered, a formal 

presentation will be made at 4:30 and 6 

p.m. followed by the opportunity for the 

public to comment on the scope of the 

EIS. Those wishing to speak are 

required to register at the meeting 

location. At the meeting, comments may 

also be submitted in written form, or 

orally one-on-one to a stenographer. 

Persons interested in providing 

written comments on the scope of the 

EIS should do so by January 31, 2007. 

Written comments sent should be sent 

by mail to persons identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information regarding the 

environmental review, please contact: 

Mr. John Wilkins, Director, Capital 

Planning, The New Jersey Transit 

Corporation, One Penn Plaza East, 

Newark, NJ 07105–2246, telephone 

(973) 491–7846, or Mr. David 

Valenstein, Environmental Program 

Manager, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Mail Stop 20, Washington DC 

20590, telephone (202) 493–6368. 

Information and documents regarding 

the environmental review process will 

be also made available through 

appropriate means, including the 

project Web site: http:// 

www.portalbridgenec.com. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Description of Project Area 

AMTRAK owns and operates the 

Northeast Corridor rail line from 

Pennsylvania Station New York to 

Union Station in Washington DC, 

including the heavily used ‘‘High Line’’

portion connecting Newark, NJ and New 

York, NY across the Portal Bridge. NJ 

TRANSIT’s Northeast Corridor Line 

operates over AMTRAK’s Northeast 

Corridor in portions of Pennsylvania 

and in New Jersey from Trenton to New 

York’s Pennsylvania Station. NJ 

TRANSIT’s North Jersey Coast Line, 

certain Montclair-Boonton Line trains, 

and certain Morris & Essex Line trains 

join AMTRAK’s Northeast Corridor west 

of the Hackensack River utilize the 

Portal Bridge and subsequently travel 

under the Hudson River to their 

terminus at New York’s Pennsylvania 

Station. 

NJ TRANSIT’s commuter rail system 

ridership has been growing and will 

continue to grow due to population 

growth in communities throughout New 

Jersey, Orange and Rockland Counties 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices 74575 

in New York, and portions of 

Pennsylvania. NJ TRANSIT operates 20 

trains during the peak morning hour 

over the Portal Bridge that serve 

approximately 17,700 passengers. 

AMTRAK currently operates 

approximately 48 scheduled trains in 

each direction over this segment of the 

Northeast Corridor every weekday, 

including 15 time-sensitive premium 

Acela Express trains. While Portal 

Bridge is clearly a vital river crossing, 

the capacity constraints and problems 

caused by the existing Portal Bridge 

decrease schedule reliability for both 

AMTRAK and NJ TRANSIT customers. 

Over the past few decades, 

improvements to the Northeast 

Corridor’s infrastructure have greatly 

enhanced rail operations for AMTRAK 

and NJ TRANSIT. The Portal Bridge is 

an essential yet weak link along the 

Northeast Corridor. Planned projects 

intended to meet future transportation 

demands will place additional 

importance on a reliable and efficient 

Hackensack River crossing. The FTA 

and NJ TRANSIT, in partnership with 

the Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey are currently preparing an 

EIS for the Access to the Region’s Core 

(ARC) project. The ARC EIS will 

evaluate a new two-track tunnel under 

the Hudson River, a new rail terminal in 

Manhattan adjacent to the existing Penn 

Station, and new track capacity on the 

Northeast Corridor. While the proposed 

operating plan for ARC could be 

achieved using alternate routes, the 

locally preferred alternative results in a 

total of 37 NJ TRANSIT and AMTRAK 

trains operating over an enhanced Portal 

Bridge in the AM peak hour. Currently, 

23 trains operate over Portal Bridge in 

the AM peak hour. The ARC as well as 

other planned projects would therefore 

increase the need for Portal Bridge 

improvements. 

II. Problem Identification 

The existing Portal Bridge was 

constructed in 1910 and is a two-track, 

moveable swing-span bridge that crosses 

the Hackensack River in New Jersey 

between the City of Kearny and the City 

of Secaucus. The Northeast Corridor has 

two tracks over the Portal Bridge and 

between Swift Interlocking and 

Secaucus Junction, which creates two 

bottlenecks. Trains must merge from 

four tracks to two tracks at Swift 

Interlocking, and from four tracks to two 

tracks at Secaucus Junction. Because 

multiple rail lines are merging onto a 

two-track crossing, the window of 

opportunity for each train is reduced. 

This operational inflexibility means that 

a delay on one rail line can cascade to 

other rail lines. Portal Bridge is a critical 

infrastructure element for both 

AMTRAK and NJ TRANSIT, enabling 

movement between east-of-Hudson and 

west-of-Hudson destinations, however 

the existing bridge, poses safety 

concerns, capacity constraints, and 

operational inflexibility. 

The Portal Bridge was constructed 

nearly a century ago. Design standards 

for steel railroad bridges anticipate a 

typical lifespan of 100 years. Given the 

Portal Bridge’s age, the structure is 

nearing the end of its useful life. Portal 

Bridge presents a considerable ongoing 

operation and maintenance expense for 

AMTRAK because the mechanical and 

structural components are prone to 

failure due to age and wear and because 

swing bridges are the most complicated 

movable rail bridge type. Special rail 

connections, known as miter rails, allow 

the rails to disengage and the bridge to 

swing open and closed. These 

connections are automatically 

controlled mechanical separations in 

the track that move apart for the swing 

span to open and then are realigned 

after it is closed. Mechanical wedges 

must lock the bridge when in the closed 

position and special mechanical electric 

power catenery joints must separate or 

rejoin the continuous contact wire on 

either end of the bridge for each 

movement. As a result of these features, 

while trains can operate at 90 miles per 

hour (mph) on adjacent portions of the 

Northeast Corridor, speeds over the 

Portal Bridge are restricted to 70 mph. 

The Hackensack River is a navigable 

waterway and marine traffic requires 

frequent bridge openings. These 

openings increase the likelihood of 

mechanical malfunctions, which have 

in the past caused the bridge to remain 

in the open position for long periods of 

time, resulting in train delays. Due to 

these types of issues, older swing span 

bridges are now being replaced by other 

types of moveable bridges such as 

vertical lift and single-span bascule 

bridges. 

The Hackensack River is a navigable 

waterway governed by the U.S. Coast 

Guard. The existing Portal Bridge has 

only 23 feet of clearance between mean 

high water (MHW) and the lowest steel 

elevation of the bridge. As a result, 

marine traffic along this segment of the 

Hackensack River requires the frequent 

opening of the Portal Bridge and 

disruption of Northeast Corridor train 

traffic. This conflict is currently 

managed by restricting the times during 

which the bridge is permitted to open. 

Nonetheless, the lengthy time that is 

required to open and close the Portal 

Bridge for marine traffic continues to be 

disruptive to efficient rail operations. 

To avoid disruption to passenger 

service, AMTRAK is forced to conduct 

bridge maintenance and inspection 

during increasingly limited time 

periods, such as at night and on 

weekends. As traffic along the Northeast 

Corridor increases, fewer suitable time 

periods for maintenance and inspection 

will be available. 

III. Alternatives to be Considered 

The EIS will consider a No Action 

Alternative and a number of different 

build alternatives to improve the 

existing Northeast Corridor rail crossing 

over the Hackensack River. These 

alternatives will consider retention or 

removal of the existing Portal Bridge 

and construction of one or two new 

bridges. Alternatives retaining the Portal 

Bridge will, in some cases, include the 

modification of certain characteristics of 

the existing bridge—such as height and 

operation (e.g., a moveable structure 

versus a fixed structure). For a new 

bridge, alternatives proposed will vary 

in bridge height, type (moveable/fixed), 

and number of tracks to be constructed 

between Swift Interlocking and 

Secaucus Junction. 

Alternatives Retaining the Existing 

Portal Bridge: These alternatives would 

retain the existing Portal Bridge and 

include construction of a new two-track 

or three-track bridge, either fixed or 

moveable. 

Alternatives Modifying the Existing 

Portal Bridge: These alternatives would 

involve physically modifying the 

existing Portal Bridge (beyond normal 

maintenance), rehabilitating the 

structure, and raising it above its 

existing height. Some of these 

alternatives would raise the existing 

bridge so that it could be fixed in a 

closed position. Other alternatives 

would raise the bridge to a lesser height 

and retain its moveable nature. These 

alternatives would also include a new 

bridge, either fixed or moveable, with 

two or three tracks. 

Alternatives Removing the Existing 

Portal Bridge: These alternatives would 

involve the construction of two new 

bridges and removal of the existing 

Portal Bridge. These alternatives would 

include a mix of bridge height, 

operation type (moveable or fixed), and 

alignment along the Hackensack River. 

Some of these alternatives would 

include the construction of a new twoor three-track movable bridge with a 

second new two-track fixed or moveable 

bridge. Other alternatives in this 

category would include a new two-track 

or three-track fixed bridge and a second 

new two-track fixed bridge. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
74576 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices 

IV. Probable Effects 

The FRA, NJ TRANSIT, and AMTRAK 

will evaluate both project-specific and 

cumulative changes to the social, 

economic and physical environment—

including land use and socioeconomic 

conditions, ecology, water resources, 

historic and archaeological resources, 

visual character and aesthetics, 

contaminated and hazardous materials, 

transportation, air quality, noise and 

vibration, environmental justice, and 

cumulative and secondary effects. The 

analysis will be undertaken consistent 

with NEPA, Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations, Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, FRA 

guidance, FTA regulations, DOT 

guidance, and Section 4(f) of the DOT 

Act, along with other applicable Federal 

and State regulations. 

V. Scoping Process 

FRA invites all interested individuals, 

organizations, and Federal, State, and 

local agencies to comment on the scope 

of the EIS. Comments are encouraged on 

specific social, economic, or 

environmental issues to be evaluated, 

and on reasonable alternatives that may 

be less costly, more cost effective or 

have fewer environmental impacts 

while achieving similar transportation 

objectives. 

NJ TRANSIT will be leading the 

outreach activities during the public 

scoping process, beginning with the 

scoping meeting identified under DATES

above. Following the public scoping 

process, public outreach activities will 

include meetings with the Regional 

Citizens’ Liaison Committee (RCLC) 

established for the study, as well as 

meetings with interested parties or 

small groups. Those wishing to 

participate in the RCLC may do so by 

registering on the project Web site at 

http://www.portalbridgenec.com. As 

part of the study process, the project 

Web site listed will be periodically 

updated to reflect the project’s status. In 

addition, newsletters will be circulated 

to a broad constituency to ensure people 

are informed about the project. 

Additional opportunities for public 

participation will be announced through 

mailings, notices, advertisements and 

press releases. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 5, 

2006. 

Mark E. Yachmetz, 

Associate Administrator for Railroad 

Development. 

[FR Doc. E6–21015 Filed 12–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Petition for Waiver of Compliance 

In accordance with Part 211 of Title 

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

notice is hereby given that the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) received 

a request for a waiver of compliance 

with certain requirements of its safety 

standards. The individual petition is 

described below, including the party 

seeking relief, the regulatory provisions 

involved, the nature of the relief being 

requested, and the petitioner’s 

arguments in favor of relief. 

Canadian National Railway Company 

[Docket Number FRA–2006–26178] 

The Canadian National Railway 

Company (CN) requests a waiver of 

compliance from certain provisions of 

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Part 228.9(a)(1), Hours of Service 

of Railroad Employees, for CN to utilize 

a computerized system of recording 

hours of duty data. The CFR requires 

that records maintained under Part 

228.9(a)(1) be signed by the employee 

whose time is being recorded, or in the 

case of train and engine crews, signed 

by the ranking crewmember. CN seeks 

to utilize a computerized system of 

recording hours of duty information 

which would not comply with the above 

requirements for a ‘‘signature’’ of the 

employee or ranking crewmember. CN 

proposes that each employee will have 

his or her own identification number 

(ID) and personal identification number 

(PIN). The PIN will remain confidential 

to the employee. The employee ID and 

PIN will be used to restrict access to 

jobs or train reporting screens to only 

the employee or ranking crew member 

of that specific job or train. When an 

employee accesses his or her reporting 

screens for input of the hours of service 

record required by CFR Part 228.11, the 

employee’s PIN will not appear on the 

computer screen. After entering the 

appropriate data, the employee will be 

asked to ‘‘certify’’ his or her entries. 

When certified, the data entered by the 

employee will be date- and timestamped by the computer. The 

employee’s certified record will then be 

available through the FRA Inspection 

Screen and will display the employee’s 

ID Number along with the date and time 

of certification. CN proposes to replace 

the current manually signed paper 

record with a printable copy of the 

employee’s program-entered data 

showing the date, time and ID of 

entering employee. 

CN warrants that FRA will be able to 

access each employee’s certified records 

through agency-approved selection 

criteria. This criteria makes all CN 

employee hours of service records in the 

program available for review and 

printing by an inspector. 

CN maintains that the change is in the 

best interests of all parties because it 

will reduce unnecessary paperwork and 

the costs associated therewith while 

providing the railroad, its employees, 

and the FRA with a superior level of 

information on a more timely basis than 

is currently available. 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in these proceedings by 

submitting written data or comments. 

FRA does not anticipate scheduling a 

public hearing in connection with these 

proceedings since the facts do not 

appear to warrant a hearing. If any 

interested party desires an opportunity 

for oral comment, they should notify 

FRA in writing before the end of the 

comment period and specify the basis 

for their request. 

All communications concerning these 

proceedings should identify the 

appropriate docket number (FR–2006–

26178) and may be submitted by one of 

the following methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic site; 

• Fax: 202–493–2251; 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001; or 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Communications received within 45 

days of the date of this notice will be 

considered by FRA before final action is 

taken. Comments received after that 

date will be considered as far as 

practicable. All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the 

above facility. All documents in the 

public docket are also available for 

inspection and copying on the Internet 

at the docket facility’s Web site at 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES